You are here:

Languages

Evidence from clinical trials is needed: what are Cuban medical journals doing about it?

Date and Location

Session:

P4.053

Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author

Ania Torres Pombert

Contact person

Ania Torres Pombert

Abstract text

Background:
To translate clinical trials into knowledge depends on the right primary information about them but its publishing is a scientific and ethical dilemma. Some initiatives trying to standardize the process aren't always accomplished in all contexts.
Objectives:
To review the editorial policy in Cuban medical journals related to Uniform Requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors
To estimate the endorsement of reports to the CONSORT statement
To assess the prospective registration of Cuban trials
Methods:
The instructions to authors of 39 journals previously identified with the Iberoamerican Cochrane were revised for identifying explicit parameters related to clinical trials. Some studies were evaluated using the CONSORT checklist. Cuban registries from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the Cuban Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC) were checked.
Results:
Most of journals refer to the ICMJE requirements but they only use it for citing. Journals are published by pharmaceutical industry and the Medical Sciences Press; only one refers explicitly to the CONSORT and the prospective registration of clinical trials. 174 Cuban clinical trials were identified through the ICTRP since the first one in 2004 in the Australasian registry. RPCEC exists since 2007 and shows 151 trials, 54 of them after the condition of primary registry. More than 90% of the registries have been retrospective and just a few of them have been published in journals. The assessed reports don’t fulfill at least the most elementary Consort items. Topics like the random sequence generation, allocation concealment, the intention to treat analysis are ignored.
Conclusions:
Editorial policy in Cuban medical journals is not aligned to the main international standards for clinical trials publication. As a consequence the quality of reports is not optimal. A joint project with the Medical Sciences Press for assessing and improving the quality of reports was signed.